The Problem of Universal Jurisdiction in Curbing International Crimes

There is generally no agreed doctrinal definition of universal jurisdiction in customary and conventional international law. However, this does not preclude any definition, which embodies the essence of the concept as the ability to exercise jurisdiction irrespective of territoriality or nationality. Therefore, the concept of universal jurisdiction applies to a situation where " entitles a State to exercise its jurisdictio territory, has been perpetrated by a non the acts." "Universal jurisdiction" refers to the competence of a national court to try a p suspected of a serious international crime torture-even if neither the suspect nor the victim are nationals of the country where the court is located ("the forum state"), and the crime took pla legal principle which has evolved in order to overcome jurisdictional gaps in the international legal order. It is intended to ensure that those responsible for international crimes crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and torture justice. Universal jurisdiction is primarily enacted when States with a more traditional jurisdictional nexus to the crime (related, inter alia, to the pla prove unable or unwilling to genuinely investigate and prosecute: when their legal system is inadequate, or when it is used to shield the accused from justice.